RELIGION....(part 2)

[Cardinal Bunal]

---

your wacky claims! And you haven't been able to give even one halfway decent reason why anyone should accept your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS as authoritative. Not one.

Because my understanding (NOT interpretations) can be reconciled with everything that has happened for a fact during the past 2 millenia and with everything written in The Books.
And whenever I present something coming from the Holy Writ that very clearly convicts and condemns the Roman Catholic Church, you just throw it off as just another personal interpretation of mine.

You are also simply assuming that the so-called "Documents" are authentic. But how do you KNOW which books are supposed to be in it? There is no canon listed anywhere in the Bible. So how do you know what should be in it? Obviously, some OTHER AUTHORITY must have established the canon. And it was the Catholic Church that did so.

They didn't ;b But they knew what books in the NT were authoritative with the shared agreement of the different congregations were parts of the Holy Writ were either distributed or read (2 Thes. 2: 15, see also 1 Thes. 5: 27 or Col. 4: 16 )

In other words, you've just affirmed that the rest of the Bible is UNNECESSARY for salvation! Foot in mouth disease detected

As far as salvation is doctrinally concerned, EVERYTHING about this aspect is chronicled in the Scriptures........ and all the parts ABOUT living the life necessary to work out (not work for) salvation with fear and trembling is also written....

This includes the teachings of Christ and even the traditions of the believers (Acts 2: 42 - 47 see also Heb. 10: 24, 25)

*When RCFD's speak of traditions they often have the connotation of their man-made unorthodox and heretical teachings. ;b

------------------------------

Truly, I tell you anyone who does not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it
- Luke 18: 17

[KS Stanilavsky]

THERE IS DIVERSITY AMONG CATHOLICS

by Mary Ann Collins

The appearance of unity among Catholics is misleading. There are actually major differences in theology and in practice. I will only discuss a few of them, by way of example. Malachi Martin's most recent book, "Windswept House," deals with some other differences. Although it is a novel, it deals with real issues.

Protestants who have differences in practice and belief identify themselves by different names. They openly acknowledge their differences. However, Catholics who have differences in practice and belief still call themselves by the same name (Roman Catholic), and they say that the Pope is their leader. This gives a false impression of unity.

In spite of verbally saying that the Pope is their leader, there are Catholic priests and theologians who openly defy the Pope's authority. Malachi Martin wrote about some of them in his book, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church". [Note 3] There are also feminist nuns who openly defy the Pope. (These will be discussed later.)

There are conservative Catholics who want to do things the "old" way that things were done before the Second Vatican Council. This includes having Mass said in Latin.

An ultra conservative group called True Catholic believes that Pope John Paul II is not a valid pope because he has promoted "heresy" (things which are contrary to Catholic doctrine which was "infallibly" declared by previous popes). They believe that as a result the papacy has been vacant. In order to remedy the situation, they have elected a pope. [Their web site has information about this. Note 4 gives the address.]

There are Catholic theologians who teach liberation theology, which equates "salvation" with armed revolution. There are gun-toting Catholic priests who fight alongside communist guerillas, working for communist revolution. [Note 5] I first heard about them from a Latin American friend who personally witnessed the destruction and confusion which they have caused.

As we will see, some Catholic priests and nuns teach things which are clearly contrary to basic Christian doctrine. Yet they are still allowed to teach in the name of the Catholic Church, and to hold positions of influence and authority.

NOTES:
3. Malachi Martin, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987). Malachi Martin recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a Vatican insider, and the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII.

4. True Catholic's web site has articles about the state of the papacy.

http://www.truecatholic.org

5. . Malachi Martin, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

[Gwynhuever]

letter of the law versus spirit of the law....most of us (especially Catholics) put too much emphasis on the letter of the law...proclaiming ourselves righteous based on our interpretation of the bible, quran or any other holy references....those who follow the spirit of the law ...live with Christ like actions....the core foundation of their faith is LOVE...as Jesus taught mankind...

mao lang sad na akong gamay nga tampo

[Cardinal Bunal]

letter of the law versus spirit of the law....most of us (especially Catholics) put too much emphasis on the letter of the law...proclaiming ourselves righteous based on our interpretation of the bible, quran or any other holy references....those who follow the spirit of the law ...live with Christ like actions....the core foundation of their faith is LOVE...as Jesus taught mankind...

mao lang sad na akong gamay nga tampo

You are correct. See Rom. 2: 10 - 12

Although there is ONE WAY we can be sure to have the imputed righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5: 20, 21

[Gwynhuever]

@cardinal bunal....thanks for the feedback...dili man ko ganahan makig lantugi aning relihiyon bro kay di mag human...ang ako lang Jesus fanatic kaayo ko....so usahay sakitan ko maminaw nga daghan komentaryo made "in the name of God" ...unya diay to stemming out of man's EGOISM diay...dalhon pa jud name sa Ginoo....

[mannyamador]

Because my understanding (NOT interpretations) can be reconciled with everything that has happened for a fact during the past 2 millenia and with everything written in The Books

Har har!!! Really now? Then why can't you even present any evidence to backup your wacky interpretations? We've sunk every last one of your claims in this thread. You really should try to tell the truth. Your dishonesty says a lot about your berand of "christianity".

And whenever I present something coming from the Holy Writ that very clearly convicts and condemns the Roman Catholic Church, you just throw it off as just another personal interpretation of mine.

As we all should. You have to back up your interpretations with proof and authority. Any wacko can interpret and twist "holy writ" to say just about anyhting. That is what you do.

They didn't ;b But they knew what books in the NT were authoritative with the shared agreement of the different congregations were parts of the Holy Writ were either distributed or read

Now you're re-writing history. There was NO AUTHORITATIVE canon before the Catholic Church defined it. None of ther congregations could claim to have a complete canon and none of them could claim authority to even define one in the first place.

But since you continue with your wacko claims, PROVE THEM. Show me an accurate, complete, and authoritative canon pre-dating the Church Councils. I've asked for this MANY TIMES. As usual, you FAIL to produce one.

In fact, how do you even know you have the right canon? On whose authority do you base your canon? Who for you had the authority to decide it? None was ever made before the Catholic Church defined it, so do you now acknoweldge the authority of the Catholic Church to define the canon? If not, then why can't you show me a definitive, authoritative canon that existed BEFORE the Catholic Church defined it?

If you can't show me another authority that defined a full, accurate canon, then your definition of "holy writ" isn't worth squat.

As far as salvation is doctrinally concerned, EVERYTHING about this aspect is chronicled in the Scriptures........ and all the parts ABOUT living the life necessary to work out (not work for) salvation with fear and trembling is also written....

Really now? Then why doesn't Scripture claim that EVERYTHING about salvation and the manner for living it is chronicled in Scriptiure? Show me even one verse that explicitly states that EVERYTHING about salvation (and how to live a life in accordance with it) is in Scripture and that there CAN BE NO OTHER AUTHORITY. Try not to take a few rmillenia to do so, OK?

Well? So far you've chickened out of every challenge I've given you. You have consistently failed to prove even a single one of your wacky claims. This is not honest at all.

[mannyamador]

As we will see, some Catholic priests and nuns teach things which are clearly contrary to basic Christian doctrine. Yet they are still allowed to teach in the name of the Catholic Church, and to hold positions of influence and authority.

Is this anything new? There have always been heretics even in the early Church. And yet the Church's doctrines have been faithful to the inital "deposit of Faith" given to the Apostles. No other church can claim that, especially not the "born-again" churches that have OFFICIALLY twisted scripture to mean just about whatever they want.

[dacs]

THERE IS DIVERSITY AMONG CATHOLICS

by Mary Ann Collins

The appearance of unity among Catholics is misleading. There are actually major differences in theology and in practice. I will only discuss a few of them, by way of example. Malachi Martin's most recent book, "Windswept House," deals with some other differences. Although it is a novel, it deals with real issues.

Protestants who have differences in practice and belief identify themselves by different names. They openly acknowledge their differences. However, Catholics who have differences in practice and belief still call themselves by the same name (Roman Catholic), and they say that the Pope is their leader. This gives a false impression of unity.

Unfortunately, you have no basis for argument to that effect.Â* Obviously, when someone goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church, the person becomes either a schismatic or a heretic.Â* The person has wrenched himself out of the embrace of the Catholic Church and is therefore not in full communion with it.

In spite of verbally saying that the Pope is their leader, there are Catholic priests and theologians who openly defy the Pope's authority. Malachi Martin wrote about some of them in his book, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church". [Note 3] There are also feminist nuns who openly defy the Pope. (These will be discussed later.)

Again, ever heard of schismatics and heretics?Â* If you haven't, try reading about them.

There are conservative Catholics who want to do things the "old" way that things were done before the Second Vatican Council. This includes having Mass said in Latin.

Haven't you heard?Â* Mass is still celebrated in Latin with full permission from the Vatican. Â*The problem with some is that they consider Latin mass to be the only valid Mass. Â*For Catholics, this is not so. Â*For non-Catholics, they make an issue out of it.

An ultra conservative group called True Catholic believes that Pope John Paul II is not a valid pope because he has promoted "heresy" (things which are contrary to Catholic doctrine which was "infallibly" declared by previous popes). They believe that as a result the papacy has been vacant. In order to remedy the situation, they have elected a pope. [Their web site has information about this. Note 4 gives the address.]

Indeed, the group that calls themselves 'True Catholics' do not consider Pope John Paul II (now Pope Benedict XVI) as a valid pope.Â* But, hey, they are not Catholics - so what gives?Â* Just because a group calls itself Catholic will not make the group Catholic.Â* You could do better than that, can't you?

There are Catholic theologians who teach liberation theology, which equates "salvation" with armed revolution.

No, liberation theology does not say that.Â* It is an extremist's interpretation of the application of liberation theology.

There are gun-toting Catholic priests who fight alongside communist guerillas, working for communist revolution. [Note 5]

Indeed, but priests who are defrocked - devoid of any priestly faculties.

This is getting boring.Â* Give me a solid argument, please.

I first heard about them from a Latin American friend who personally witnessed the destruction and confusion which they have caused.

Unfortunate, but what can I say? These priests have obviously lost their priestly vocation.Â* What now?

As we will see, some Catholic priests and nuns teach things which are clearly contrary to basic Christian doctrine. Yet they are still allowed to teach in the name of the Catholic Church, and to hold positions of influence and authority.

Quite true.Â* In fact, a great harm has been done when McCormick and Curran were allowed to teach in the Catholic University of America in the area of moral theology.Â* Only recently were these two discredited as Catholic moral theologians per pronouncement from the Vatican.Â* Dissenters, we call them.Â* The Church has always been troubled with those kind even from the days of the apostles.Â* Yet, Catholics have always been in full communion with the Church magisterium, the pope and the collegial unity of the bishops.Â* Outside of that are non-Catholics.

NOTES:
3. Malachi Martin, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987). Malachi Martin recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a Vatican insider, and the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII.

Unfortunately, you don't understand the Catholic Church.Â* A Catholic priest may preach something.Â* Yet, unless in full agreement with the teachings of the Church magisterium, it is never to be given a positive assent - even if that priest is a Vatican insider or a personal confessor of popes.Â* Your argument will only affect those who do not know.Â* Unfortunately ...

4. True Catholic's web site has articles about the state of the papacy.

http://www.truecatholic.org

5. . Malachi Martin, "The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

Okay, here's a reply given by Colin B. Donovan, STL, in one Q&A entry at the EWTN :

We get many questions about Malachi Martin, his books and his credentials. Not all of them can be answered due to an absence of information. The following is what is known.

Malachi Martin states, and the Holy See will confirm if asked, that "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].

Concerning the allegations about churchmen found in Windswept House under the guise of fiction, they would certainly be sad if true, and other sources have suggested the basic factualness of some of the accounts. However, even if they were based on fact the Church is in no more danger of being overcome by the gates of hell today than it was during any of the other crises of history. Jesus had his Judas and history shows that His Mystical Body has had its share, as well. To deny the past and present Judases within the Church would be wrong. However, to act as if it made any difference to our obligations of obedience would be to take scandal (called passive scandal) from those who are giving scandal. Jesus warns us about those who would give scandal to his little ones (Mt. 18:6) and thereby sought by that warning to provide an antidote for passive scandal, as well. In his Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas tells us,

Passive scandal implies that the mind of the person who takes scandal is unsettled in its adherence to good. Now no man can be unsettled, who adheres firmly to something immovable. The elders, i.e. the perfect, adhere to God alone, Whose goodness is unchangeable, for though they adhere to their superiors, they do so only in so far as these adhere to Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:16: "Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." Wherefore, however much others may appear to them to conduct themselves ill in word or deed, they themselves do not stray from their righteousness, according to Ps. 124:1: "They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion: he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem." Therefore scandal is not found in those who adhere to God perfectly by love, according to Ps. 118:165: "Much peace have they that love Thy law, and to them there is no stumbling-block [scandalum]." [ST II-II question 43, article 5, answer]

Perfect men sometimes fall into venial sins through the weakness of the flesh; but they are not scandalized (taking scandal in its true sense), by the words or deeds of others, although there can be an approach to scandal in them, according to Ps. 72:2: "My feet were almost moved." [ibid., response to objection 3]

So even if the crimes alleged in Windswept House actually occurred they do no more than confirm what the Catholic striving to be perfect should already know, human beings, even priests and bishops, are potentially capable of the most heinous acts of insubordination to God. This knowledge, as we conclude from St. Thomas' teaching, must not change our own unswerving fidelity to ecclesiastical authority in matters that fall under the competence of that authority.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Now you're re-writing history. There was NO AUTHORITATIVE canon before the Catholic Church defined it. None of ther congregations could claim to have a complete canon and none of them could claim authority to even define one in the first place.

Naa oi! But early very early on, before the Documents were complete there were scribes and supposed theologians who could get their epistles or other writings mixed up and confused for "written word" as well....

Any wacko can interpret and twist "holy writ" to say just about anyhting. That is what you do.

That's true, but it doesn't apply in my case. ;b

[mannyamador]

Naa oi! But early very early on, before the Documents were complete there were scribes and supposed theologians who could get their epistles or other writings mixed up and confused for "written word" as well....

Really now? So kindly show me that complete, authoritative canon that pre-dates the Church Councils. Well? Just claiming there was one doesn't prove squat. Name the document containing such a canon. Show the accurate historical reference. THIS IS PROBABLY THE TENTH TIME I'VE CHALLENGED YOU TO DO SO.

None? I thought so.

> > Any wacko can interpret and twist "holy writ" to say just about anyhting. That is what you do.
That's true, but it doesn't apply in my case.

Until you can show PROOF that your personal interpRetations are authoritative, it MOST CERTAINLY DOES APPLY TO YOUR CASE.